We inspected Support and Independence Team Central and Upper Valley 1 on 31July and 2 August 2017. We gave the provider short notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager can be available.

The last inspection of this service took place in December 2015. The service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ with a breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) because an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each service user was not maintained. On this inspection we found the service was compliant with this regulation.

The Support and Independence Team Upper Valley 1 is registered with the Care Quality Commission as a domiciliary care agency. However the service differs from other domiciliary care services as it is a short term reablement service which helps people regain their independence following periods of illness or time in hospital. People who use this service are not given specific visit times and the length of stay is dependent on the support they require at each visit. The service provided by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council works in partnership with the local NHS foundation trust and the office base is situated in Beechwood Health Centre. Referrals to the service are usually from the community, Gateway to Care or following hospital discharge.

At the time of our inspection there were 34 people receiving personal care.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and relatives we spoke with were unanimous in their praise of the service provided and the staff. People told us staff kind and supported them with encouragement and patience.

Medicines management was safe which helped ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Our discussions with staff showed they were committed to supporting people in regaining their independence. Staff were recruited safely and told us their induction and shadowing was comprehensive and prepared them for their roles. We saw staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and said they would not hesitate to report poor practice. People were given information about safeguarding.

People’s care records provided detailed information about their needs and focussed on what people could do for themselves as well as the support they needed to meet their goals in regaining their independence.

Risk assessments showed any identified risks had been assessed and mitigated.

We saw people had been involved in their support plans. There was full information about people’s needs, lifestyles, preferences and goals.

People were supported to access healthcare and benefited from a multi-disciplinary approach to promote recovery and independence.

People we spoke with raised no concerns but knew the processes to follow if they had any complaints and were confident these would be dealt with.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the way in which the service was run. They told us communication was very good. They told us about regular checks that were carried out to make sure people were happy with the support they received.

The registered manager was actively seeking ways in which the service could develop.

During our inspection, we spoke with the manager, four support workers and six people who used the service.

Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the service and quality of the care provided.

One person told us; “Their help is invaluable. I used to have three calls per day but now, because of the care and support I’ve received, I only need to have one call per day.” Another person told us; “I’m getting more independent with the support workers’ help. They’ve sorted out for me to have grab rails fitted so I can be more independent.” Everyone told us they knew their support workers and said they were all very ‘friendly and caring.’

The four support workers we spoke with told us the Support and Independence Team was a good team to work for, where they could rely on each other’s help and support.

There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse.

There were effective systems in place to ensure people who used the service were involved in decision making and to identify areas for improvement. For example, ‘Home Care Assistant Observations’ were carried out by the provider (at least) annually. These observations ensured that the correct routines were being followed including compliance with the philosophy of care, record keeping, health and safety and staff conduct. We found that any areas where improvements or changes had been identified were addressed and action taken to resolve the issue.

This inspection took place on 10 and 23 December 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

The Support and Independence Team Upper Valley 1 is a domiciliary care agency and helps people regain their independence following periods of illness or time in hospital. The service's office base is situated in Beechwood Health Centre. Referrals to the service are usually from the community, Gateway to Care or following hospital discharge.

A registered manager was not in place with the previous manager deregistering with the commission in February 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A manager had put in an application to become the registered manager in January 2015 however this application had been returned due to being incorrectly filled out. Since then, satisfactory steps had not been taken to ensure a registered manager was in place.

People had care records in place. However care records contained minimal personalised information and documentation was sometimes duplicated.

People did not always have risk assessments documentation in place for areas of identified risk.

Before people started using the service they were assessed by the team leader or the deputy team leader. This assessment identified peoples support needs effectively.

People’s support needs were reviewed on a weekly basis. This review identified any changes and information on changes was passed onto staff.

People told us they felt safe around staff who appeared competent and trained. People said staff were polite and patient and respected their dignity.

Staffing levels of the service were sufficient to keep people safe. When there was short term vacancies, staff in the team would take additional work or they would be supported from another Support and Independence team.

Staff were recruited in a safe way. Appropriate background checks had been completed on all staff to make sure they were of suitable character.

Staff told us about people and their needs. Staffs knowledge of people was detailed and this was evidenced in daily recordings. People told us staff were familiar and knew them well.

People told us they were encouraged to do things for themselves. Staff said they promoted people’s independence on each visit. This was evidenced in people’s daily recordings.

Staff received training on a regular basis to maintain their skills. Specific courses were accessed to enable people to be supported more effectively.

The support and Independence team worked closely with a number of different health professionals. We saw evidence of Occupational Therapists, Speech And Language Therapists and nurses involved in peoples care.

The service had a complaints policy in place. People were aware how to complain. We reviewed complaints and found they had been actioned in line with the provider’s policy.

The service worked in line with and staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

The manager told us various audits were completed by themselves and the team leader. A new audit for medicines was present but had not been used yet. Other audits looked at the quality of the service.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.  You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report.